Case C-42/24, Emporiki Serron – Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 22 January 2024 – Emporiki Serron AE – Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton v Ypourgos Anaptyxis kai Ependyseon, Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon
Date: 2024-01-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: control of State aid, general budget (EU), infringement of EU law, limitation of legal proceedings, reimbursement of aid








C_202403052EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3052


13.5.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Symvoulio tis Epikrateias (Greece) lodged on 22 January 2024 – Emporiki Serron AE – Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton v Ypourgos Anaptyxis kai Ependyseon, Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon


(Case C-42/24, Emporiki Serron – Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton)

(C/2024/3052)
Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Symvoulio tis Epikrateias

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Emporiki Serron AE – Emporias kai Diathesis Agrotikon Proionton

Respondents: Ypourgos Anaptyxis kai Ependyseon, Ypourgos Agrotikis Anaptyxis kai Trofimon

Questions referred









1.


Is a national provision, such as Article 103 of Nomos 2362/1995 (Law 2362/1995), which not only lays down a limitation period of five years for the recovery of sums unduly paid to economic operators following an act or omission by them which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them, but also sets the starting point of the limitation period as the time when the undue or unlawful payment of aid is discovered, instead of the time when the irregularity was committed, compatible with the provisions of Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 (1) and with the general principle of legal certainty?












2.


Where, pursuant to Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95, national legislation lays down a limitation period longer than the four-year limitation period provided for in Article 3(1) of that regulation, are the provisions of the last subparagraph of paragraph 1 to be interpreted as establishing a maximum limitation period of eight years from the date on which the irregularity was committed in respect of a claim for the repayment of aid unduly or unlawfully paid, or as establishing a maximum limitation period twice as long as the longer period laid down by the national legislation?












3.


Furthermore, if the answer to the first question is in the affirmative and the answer to the second question is that the provisions of the last subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 are to be interpreted as establishing a maximum limitation period twice as long as the longer period laid down by the national legislation, then if the national legislation lays down a limitation period longer than that provided for in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 and at the same time sets the starting point for the calculation of that period as the time when the irregularity was discovered, does the limitation period begin to run from the time when the irregularity was committed or from the time when it was discovered?






(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3052/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)